National Republican., 1887-01-22
Guns or No Guns ?

The assertion has been made in these
columns on the authority of the friends Of
Mr.. Randall that he is fayorably disposed
to any appropriation that may be adequate
to the demands for national defense, pro.
vided the country can be assured of com.
mensurate results. In other words, he in
sists upon certainty that guns and arma-
ment shall he produced or manufactured
before any very large amount Of public
money is expended for those purposes
The meaning Of this declaration is very
plain. 1t is, in brief, that Mr.. Randall and
his friends have no confidence In the
ability-perbaps the integrity-of the ord
nance bureau to do its full duty In these
premises. There can be no politics in the
consideration Of that proposition, for the
plain reason that the bureau referred to is
one Of the fixed institutions Of each sue
cessive administration. 1t is controlled by
army officers who are themselves controlled
by the War Department and the President,
DO matter what the political tendencies
thereof may he. Hence Mr.. Randall's
position, as asserted by his friends, appears
to be invulnerable. But it is explained
that he goes further than this, demanding
that the appropriations in question shall
provide for competition in the supply Of
guns and armament between private manu-
fGcturers with and against the ordnance
bureau. This, it is claimed, is no new
departure for him; and that he has
steadily maintained the theory that the
government should never be permitted
to overslaugh private enterprise, to the dis
advantage Of its citizens, In any respect.
And now he is reported to be intent upon
clearing out or utter abolition Of the ord
nance bureau. The reasons given for this
determination are that Gen. Benet, the chief
Of that bureau, has, 1t is claimed, been
guilty Of dereliction Of duty, in that he has
misused appropriations intended by Con-
gress for the specific use Of private parties.
That is, 1t is charged that the sum Of
100000 appropriated by the act Of March
8, 1856, tor the Haskell multlcharge
gum" was used by Gen. Benet, or
"the most of it," for other purposes.
Perhaps this misdirection OF the public
funds, this notification of q congressional
enactment, may be satisfactorily explained
by the generals friends. We hope 1t may;
but the attempt to hoot II down with the
cry that the lobby Is inte ested in the
charge will not prevail. On the contrary,
If these premises are correct, 1t would ap-
| pear that the army officers interested are in
the lobby themselves, with all their social
and other Influences, against the honest
| projects Of private citizens. This, at least,
is the assumption Of Mr.. Randall and his
| friends, was the firm belief OF the late
Senator Logan, and was the fixed convic-
tion Of q sufficient number Of congressman
to defeat the fortiGcation appropriation bill
at the last session. And It may be further
explained that the appropriation commit
tee seems at this session to be inclined in
| the same direction. Mr.. Haskell In re.
cent letter which was, after due investiga-
tlon, editorially indOrsed by the New York
HTdld, recites the following incident In
connection with Gen. Benet's interview
with that committee:
Gen. Renet acknowledged that he had ex-
| pended most Of the money [the 100000 ap-
| pri0tiOnl for other purposes for which he was
reprimanded by the committee, and was asked
by what right he presumed to do such a thing.
| out VI ttlS sdlu ITesluell mas
applied TO Congress to have the constitution
amended so that the President could veto an
item Of an appropriation bill separately, which
he now has no power to do, and yet you, Gen.
Benet, have usurpcd the right to annul an
item Of an appropriation bill. after it has been
approved by the President, and divert money
provided for special purposes in au appropr-
alton bill."
Plainly, II all this be true, and If Gen.
Benet were a civil officer, amenable to the
ordinary course Of law, he would be liable
to impeachment, AS 1t is, he rests easy,
either as an innocent man or an official pro.
tected by the circumvention Of bureau IRE.
sponsibility.
However this may be, the question Of
guns or no guns, Of armament or no arma-
meht, comes pertinently to the front. And
there can he no objection, we think, to Mr..
Randall's proposition that the goYernentm